[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] propagate gfp_t to page table alloc functions
    On 25 April 2012 07:30, Andrew Morton <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:29 +1000
    > Nick Piggin <> wrote:
    >> > Hmm, there are several places to use GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS even, GFP_ATOMIC.
    >> > I believe it's not trivial now.
    >> They're all buggy then. Unfortunately not through any real fault of their own.
    > There are gruesome problems in block/blk-throttle.c (thread "mempool,
    > percpu, blkcg: fix percpu stat allocation and remove stats_lock").  It
    > wants to do an alloc_percpu()->vmalloc() from the IO submission path,
    > under GFP_NOIO.

    Yeah, that sucks. CFQ has something similar.

    Should just allocate it up front when creating a throttled group.
    Allocate and init when it first gets used schemes are usually pretty
    problematic. Is it *really* warranted to do it lazily like this?

    > Changing vmalloc() to take a gfp_t does make lots of sense, although I
    > worry a bit about making vmalloc() easier to use!
    > I do wonder whether the whole scheme of explicitly passing a gfp_t was
    > a mistake and that the allocation context should be part of the task
    > context.  ie: pass the allocation mode via *current.  As a handy
    > side-effect that would probably save quite some code where functions
    > are receiving a gfp_t arg then simply passing it on to the next
    > callee.

    Both paragraphs make a lot of sense. Conceptually. :)
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-01 09:41    [W:0.026 / U:33.112 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site